The alt-right was key in getting Trump into power. But its strain of misogyny differs in sometimes surprising ways to that of the traditional Christian right

One hundred days on from Donald Trump entering the White House with its help, what will the alt-right do next? The small, loosely organised movement, which has helped to revitalise far-right politics in the United States, has made skilful use of internet activism and has a receptive ear in Trump’s chief strategist Steve Bannon, who as former head of Breitbart News once proclaimed his network “the platform of the alt-right”. More than shaping White House policy, however, the alt-right’s greatest impact may come from its efforts to shift the political culture.

Although best known for its white nationalist brand of racist ideology, there’s growing recognition that patriarchal politics is also central to the movement. Several observers have pointed out that the alt-right advocates not just white supremacy, but more specifically white male supremacy, that the movement feeds on “toxic resentment of women”, and that sexism serves as a “gateway drug” pulling a lot of young men into it. The few alt-right women who have been profiled embrace their own subordination.

Missing from these accounts is a recognition that the alt-right is reshaping patriarchal politics. Its version of male supremacy is not just more explicit or aggressive – it’s strikingly different from the version that’s been dominant among US rightists for decades.

Consider abortion. Some alt-rightists, unsurprisingly, argue that abortion is simply immoral and should be banned. Yet many others in the movement disagree – and for reasons that have nothing to do with respecting women’s autonomy or privacy. These alt-rightists support legal abortion because, they claim, it’s disproportionately used by black and Latina women and, secondarily, because they see it as a way to weed out “defective” white babies. In other words, they support abortion as a form of eugenics. Both sides of this internal alt-right debate agree that women have no business controlling their own bodies. As Greg Johnson of the alt-right website Counter-Currents put it, “in a White Nationalist society … some abortions should be forbidden, others should be mandatory, but under no circumstances should they simply be a matter of a woman’s choice”.

As far as I can tell, the only outsiders who have responded to this discussion are Christian rightists. For decades they’ve used the “black genocide” canard in an effort to smear abortion rights proponents as racist; now they have some actual racists to go after. But alt-rightists aren’t the least bit intimidated.

For 40 years, the Christian right has been the benchmark of anti-feminist, patriarchal politics in the United States. The Christian right was the first large-scale movement in US history to put the reassertion of male dominance at the centre of its programme. Since the 1970s, it has spearheaded a whole series of patriarchal initiatives, from the campaign to defeat the Equal Rights Amendment to the self-described “biblical patriarchy” movement, which tells women they have a sacred obligation to treat their husbands as “lord”.

Far-right fanboys are trying to organize street gangs — and the most effective way to fight back may be mockery

Kyle Chapman, known to his fans on the alt-right as “Based Stickman” for beating a leftist protester with a wooden stick at an early March pro-Trump protest in Berkeley, California, wants people to think he’s tough. In late April Chapman announced on Facebook his creation of a new group of right-wing street fighters, called the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights (or FOAK), dedicated to “defense and confrontation” in the streets. You could almost hear the chest-thumping right through the computer screen.

“This organization is for those that possess the Warrior Spirit,” Chapman wrote. “The weak or timid need not apply.”

A few days after that, the Proud Boys network, a group that Vice co-founder and former Fox News contributor Gavin McInnes calls a “pro-West fraternal organization,” posted a notice about the formation of the alt-knights’ order and a call for “strong minded men” who are “comfortable in fisticuffs” to join. I reached out to Chapman in hopes of seeing his “warrior spirit” for myself. Alas, I ended up disappointed.

Initially, Chapman seemed interested in talking and gave me his phone number. But when I called him, he refused to speak to me, insisting that I email my questions instead. Since then nearly a week has gone by, and Chapman has not answered my emailed questions or any of my follow-up nudges on Facebook. (He has read them, though.) The “warrior spirit” is apparently not enough to help him tough out a conversation with a journalist about why he believes the world needs the Fraternal Order of the Alt-Knights.

The public claim is that this organization is needed for self-defense.

“These guys are there looking for a fight,” Neiwert said in a phone conversation. “These guys are clearly quasi-fascist, classic protofascists, and they’re on the track to full-fledged fascism. All we need to do is look at history and see how it happened.”

Neiwert said he consults historian Robert Paxton’s theory, published in 1998 in the Journal of Modern History, that delineates the five stages of fascism. Right now, Neiwert argued, far-right elements are seeking to consolidate power and that requires recruiting mainstream conservatives to their side. By going out into the street and picking fights with leftists, under the guise of free speech and self-defense, groups like the Proud Boys and the Fraternal Order of Alt-Knights can play the martyr and give ordinary conservatives an excuse to rally around them.

Republicans in Wisconsin are being called “fragile snowflakes” after pushing a bill which would require University of Wisconsin to punish students who disrupt speeches on campus.

The bill would also require the campuses remain “neutral” on issues of public importance. Supporters say its goal is “to protect the freedom of expression on college campuses.”

Wisconsin Assembly Speaker Robin Vos told Twin Cities Press that university administration could choose from a range of punishments for students who engage in`“violent, abusive, indecent, profane, boisterous, obscene, unreasonably loud, or other disorderly conduct” that interferes with another person’s free speech.

“All across the nation and here at home, we’ve seen protesters trying to silence different viewpoints,” Vos said in a statement. “Free speech means free speech for everyone and not just for the person who speaks the loudest.”